UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the inquiry into the horrendous attack on Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.

    I work closely with MI5. While its activity is necessarily discreet, the whole country should be profoundly grateful for the patriotism and courage of its staff. They work indefatigably every day to keep the British people safe. Since the start of 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 37 late-stage attack plots.

    An Islamist suicide bomber murdered 22 people and injured more than 1,000, as well as inflicting incalculable psychological damage and misery. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our profound sorrow and extending our heartfelt condolences to everyone affected by this barbaric act. They were supposed to have a brilliant time and come home safely. What should have been a simple pleasure turned into a hellish nightmare. It is vital that we understand what happened and what lessons we need to learn, because we must do everything possible to prevent a repeat of this outrage.

    Volume 3 of the inquiry was published last Thursday. I would like to thank Sir John Saunders and his team, who have spent more than three years on it. Sir John finds that there was a failure by the Security Service to act swiftly enough, and that there were

    “problems with the sharing of information between the Security Service and Counter Terrorism Policing”.

    Following the publication of the report, the director general of MI5 and the head of counter-terrorism policing offered their profound apologies for not preventing the attack.

    Sir John does not blame any of the educational establishments that the bomber attended for failing to identify that he was a risk, but he does find:

    “More needs to be done to ensure that education providers share relevant information about students”.

    Sir John concludes that the bomber

    “should have been subject to a Prevent referral at some point in 2015 or 2016. However, it is very hard to say what would have happened if”

    the bomber

    “had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.”

    The police investigation into the attack, Operation Manteline, is praised.

    Although Sir John cannot conclude whether the attack would have been prevented, he finds that there was a significant missed opportunity to take further investigative action that he judges might have led to information that could have prevented it. While this is welcome, and the Home Office will work at pace with both organisations to act on the chairman’s recommendations, we must not lose sight of the fact that responsibility for the attack lies with the bomber and his brother. These conclusions require careful consideration.

    Since 2017, the Government have made a number of changes to how we deal with and seek to prevent terrorist attacks. We have given law enforcement and intelligence agencies improved powers. We have strengthened the controls around access to explosives precursors. We have strengthened the management of terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders in prison and on licence. We have ended the automatic early release of terrorist offenders in England, Wales and Scotland, and we have ensured that the sentences served by terrorists reflect the severity of their offending. We have strengthened the tools for monitoring dangerous people in the community.

    We have invested heavily in counter-terrorism. We unveiled a new counter-terrorism operations centre in 2021 that brings together partners from counter-terrorism policing, the intelligence agencies, the criminal justice system and other Government agencies. This will allow minute-by-minute collaboration between teams in the police and MI5. Last year’s integration of special branch into the national CT policing network will improve our response to the full range of national security threats, boost skills and ensure better communication between agencies and a more consistent and effective national response.

    Work is under way to develop a new faith security training scheme to raise security awareness among faith communities and help them to mitigate threats. We continue to engage with faith organisations and security experts to develop the scheme. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) announced the continuation of the Jewish community protective security grant for 2022. In May, new funding was allocated to provide protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools.

    In response to any terrorist attack affecting British nationals, in the UK or overseas, the Home Office’s victims of terrorism unit works to ensure that the right support is available to them. The unit is conducting an internal review to strengthen its work. I am overseeing a comprehensive review of the CONTEST strategy to combat terrorism. It follows on from the independent review of Prevent, led by William Shawcross, which assessed the programme’s effectiveness in preventing people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the review made clear, Prevent requires major reform, and I have accepted all its recommendations.

    Prevent has underestimated the threat of Islamist extremism, which remains far the biggest threat that we face, and too often it has minimised the role of ideology in terrorism. It will focus on security, not on political correctness, and its first objective will be to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. The Government have also developed a comprehensive system of support for the owners and operators of public places across the UK. It includes access to research-driven expertise through products delivered by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.

    However, we must go further. Martyn’s law, formerly known as the Protect Duty, will introduce proportionate new security requirements for certain public premises throughout the UK. They will be better prepared and ready to respond, and their staff will know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Martyn’s law will clarify who is responsible for security activity at the premises in scope, increasing accountability. We are also considering how an inspection function will oversee compliance, to provide appropriate advice, and, where necessary, to sanction.

    Martyn Hett was one of those killed in Manchester. I am enormously grateful to his mother, Figen Murray, and the Martyn’s Law Campaign Team, as well as to Survivors Against Terror and all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims’ groups that have informed our work. I have always been humbled when I have met them and heard about their experiences.

    The doctrines that underpin the way in which the emergency services respond to incidents have improved since the attack. Let me end by once again recognising the anguish, and the courage, of the loved ones of those who were killed or hurt on that dreadful night. It united the country in sorrow and in disgust. We will continue to work non-stop to prevent further such tragedies from being visited on others, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Angela Rayner – 2023 Speech on Sue Gray and Role Within Labour Party

    Angela Rayner – 2023 Speech on Sue Gray and Role Within Labour Party

    The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    I would like to thank Conservative Members for asking why a senior civil servant famed for their integrity and dedication to public service decided to join the party with a real plan for Britain rather than a tired-out, washed-up, sleaze-addicted Tory Government. This is the exceptional circumstance that the Minister spoke about. We are talking about a party so self-obsessed that it is using parliamentary time to indulge in the conspiracy theories of the former Prime Minister and his gang. What will Conservative Members ask for next? Will it be a Westminster Hall debate on the moon landings, a Bill on dredging Loch Ness or a public inquiry into whether the Earth is flat?

    The biggest threat to the impartiality of the civil service is the Conservative party and its decade of debasing and demeaning standards in public life. Conservative Members talk about trust. This debate says more about the delusions of the modern Conservative party than it does about anything else. After this question, I will go back to my office to help people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis, getting an NHS dentist or—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I do not think it was a wise idea to carry on while I am standing up.

    Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

    I am sorry.

    Mr Speaker

    Thank you. May I just say that I expect everybody to be heard quietly, because I want to hear what is being said? This is too important for me not to be able to hear. When Members keep chuntering on, I cannot hear. I want the same respect to be shown to everybody who wishes to speak.

    Angela Rayner

    Thank you. Mr Speaker. As I was saying, after this question I will go back to my office to help people who are struggling with the cost of living, with getting an NHS dentist and with paying their energy bills. All of those things are the result of 13 years of this failed Conservative Administration. While they play games, we are getting on with tackling the real issues facing the country. When will they do the same?

    Jeremy Quin

    Having heard from the right hon. Lady, I see that she has clearly been advised that attack is the best form of defence. I quite understand why the Opposition feel in need of some more advisers and some new advisers, given her tone today.

    I understand the dilemma faced by the Leader of the Opposition. Having looked inside his tent, I understand why he is reaching so far outside of it. After so many rebrands, I appreciate why the right hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition require someone who can do joined up. However, the Labour party talks about rules, transparency and standards in public life, and given all that constant talk it is time that it walked the walk. I ask the right hon. Lady to go away and think: why are the Opposition refusing to publish when they met with Sue Gray; why are they being evasive; and why can they not tell us what they discussed, where they met, and how often they met? Their refusal to do so prompts the question: exactly what is Labour trying to hide?

    Many across the House have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has a tendency to claim a self-righteous monopoly on morals, but there are now serious questions as to whether Labour, by acting fast and loose, undermined the rules and the impartiality of the civil service. Labour Members must ask themselves why the Leader of the Opposition covertly met a senior civil servant and why those meetings were not declared. They believe that ACOBA rules should be tightened, but why were the current ones not followed? It is incumbent on everyone across the House to uphold and preserve the integrity and the perceived impartiality of the civil service.

    This is about trust, Mr Speaker, and it is the Labour party that risks damaging that trust with an offer of appointment. However, the Opposition can help restore that trust. They can do the right thing: they can publish the list of meetings between themselves and Sue Gray; they can publish who attended those meetings; and they can publish when they started speaking to Sue Gray. There is nothing in the ACOBA rules that stops them doing so today.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2023 Statement on Sue Gray and Role Within Labour Party

    Jeremy Quin – 2023 Statement on Sue Gray and Role Within Labour Party

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    I can confirm that, following a media report the previous day, Sue Gray, formerly second permanent secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to the Cabinet Office, resigned from the civil service on Thursday 2 March. This resignation was accepted with immediate effect. On Friday 3 March, a statement from the Opposition announced that the Labour party had offered Sue Gray the role of chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition.

    The House will recognise that this is an exceptional situation. It is unprecedented for a serving permanent secretary to resign to seek to take up a senior position working for the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. Members will expect, the Cabinet Office is looking into the circumstances leading up to Sue Gray’s resignation in order to update the relevant civil service leadership and Ministers of the facts. Subsequent to that, I will update the House appropriately.

    By way of background, to inform hon. Members, there are four pertinent sets of rules and guidance for civil servants relating to this issue. First, under the civil service code, every civil servant is expected to uphold the civil service’s core values, which include impartiality. The code states that civil servants must

    “act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers”.

    Secondly, rules apply when very senior civil servants wish to leave the service. Permanent secretaries are subject to the business appointments process that, for most senior leavers, is administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. ACOBA provides advice to the Prime Minister, who is the ultimate decision maker in cases involving the most senior civil servants. Once the Prime Minister agrees the conditions and the appointment is taken up, ACOBA publishes its letter to the applicant on its website.

    The business appointment rules form part of a civil servant’s contract of employment. The rules state that approval must be obtained prior to a job offer being announced. The Cabinet Office has not, as yet, been informed that the relevant notification to ACOBA has been made.

    Thirdly, civil servants must follow guidance on the declaration and management of outside interests. They are required, on an ongoing basis, to declare and manage any outside interests that may give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, the directory of civil service guidance states:

    “Contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of the Opposition parties…should…be cleared with…Ministers.”

    Having set out the relevant rules, I finish by saying that, regardless of the details of this specific situation, I understand why Members of this House and eminent outside commentators have raised concerns. The impartiality and perceived impartiality of the civil service is constitutionally vital to the conduct of government. I am certain that all senior civil servants are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining impartiality. Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust, so it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the civil service.

    Sir Robert Buckland

    To echo my right hon. Friend’s comments, many of us are surprised and, frankly, deeply disappointed about the particular circumstances that have emerged. This is not about the character or quality of Sue Gray. Having had the pleasure of working with her over a number of years, I can testify, along with many others, to those qualities.

    This is, as my right hon. Friend said, about the fundamental trust that has to exist between impartial civil servants up to the highest level—and here we are dealing with a permanent secretary—and the Ministers they serve. That has been the position since at least the Northcote-Trevelyan report of the mid-19th century, and it must be the position in future, particularly if the Labour party is serious about wishing to achieve power. This Government are prepared to defend that impartiality, but the activities of the Leader of the Opposition might suggest that he is not prepared to defend that impartiality.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the position on the application to ACOBA. Will he confirm that this appointment, if it is to be taken up, cannot be taken up before it is formally approved, following advice from that committee? Secondly, is it correct that the prevailing ACOBA advice for civil servants has a potential waiting period of between three months and two years? Thirdly, will a lobbying prohibition be imposed in this case? Finally, will a restriction on the passage of official information to the Labour party be imposed in this instance?

    I say again that trust and impartiality are vital if this system of government is to work. I would hope that in this case those issues will be defended.

    Jeremy Quin

    I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that. I share his disappointment; whatever the merits of the individual, I stress that it is critical that we all, on both sides of the House, do all we can to support the impartiality of the civil service. He asks about three points in particular. He asks whether there is a three-month to two-year period, and he is right. ACOBA also has the ability to recommend that no such appointment would be appropriate—it can go further—but there is a standard three-month waiting period in the contracts of employment for permanent secretaries. ACOBA generally goes up to two years but it can go further.

    There is a lifetime requirement on all civil servants, which I know they take hugely seriously, to respect the confidentiality of the work they do. It is right that that is in place. Lastly, ACOBA is in an advisory position. I have not been impressed by the Labour party over this saga. I trust that the Labour party would indeed follow recommendations from ACOBA—unless Labour is going to cast even more doubt on its credibility.

  • Matt Hancock – 2023 Statement on Allegations He Sought to Block a Disability Centre to Punish an MP

    Matt Hancock – 2023 Statement on Allegations He Sought to Block a Disability Centre to Punish an MP

    The statement made by Matt Hancock, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 7 March 2023.

    What’s being accused here never happened, demonstrating the story is wrong, and showing why such a biased, partial approach to the evidence is a bad mistake, driven by those with a vested interest and an axe to grind.

    The right place to consider everything about the pandemic objectively is in the public inquiry.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Statement on Japan-South Korea Relations

    James Cleverly – 2023 Statement on Japan-South Korea Relations

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 6 March 2023.

    The UK welcomes the statements today from South Korea and Japan as they seek to resolve sensitive historic issues. We support both our partners in their efforts to form closer ties. Our world can only be stronger and safer when we work together in support of our shared interests and values.

  • Mark Harper – 2023 Speech on Transforming Transport in the North

    Mark Harper – 2023 Speech on Transforming Transport in the North

    The speech made by Mark Harper, the Secretary of State for Transport, in Newcastle on 6 March 2023.

    Introduction

    It’s great to be here in Newcastle, in what is my first visit to the North-East as Transport Secretary. And let me start, first of all, by thanking Martin Tugwell for the invitation.

    Transport for the North is a valued partner, a tireless champion of boosting connectivity across the region, both in public and in private. And your conference today will be a reminder, to anyone who needed it, that the success of the UK is increasingly tied to the success of the North of England.

    And, to you Lord McLoughlin, or Patrick as I know you better, although frankly for the first large number of years that I knew him, he wasn’t called Patrick, he was called ‘Chief’, as we call the Chief Whip. It was a job he carried out so effectively overseeing party discipline. That it all but guaranteed my attendance here today. There seems to be a theme of former Chief Whips becoming former Transport Secretaries.

    Like Patrick, I was part of the government that, almost a decade ago, actually launched the northern powerhouse. The idea that by pooling the region’s talent, leveraging its fantastic academic institutions, and connecting its great urban centres, we wanted to turn individually strong northern cities into a collective unit, that was greater than the sum of its parts.

    It was an unashamedly ambitious target. And we knew it wouldn’t happen overnight.

    Yet despite the turbulence of recent years – from a global pandemic to now a war on the continent of Europe – there has never been a question of our commitment to the North ever being placed on the backburner, as some have claimed.

    In fact, we redoubled our efforts to boost connectivity, accelerate devolution and revive former industrial heartlands into new engines of economic growth.

    The spirit of that original mission, which we launched 9 years ago, is still alive today. A fundamental belief that a better connected, well-funded, and strongly represented North of England. isn’t just essential for this region, but for the stronger economy the whole country needs.

    Delivery

    We all know the benefits of improved connectivity. The investment it attracts, the jobs it creates and the talent it retains. So even in this tough fiscal climate – where last November, the Chancellor had to make difficult, yet responsible, decisions to restore economic stability – we protected transport infrastructure spending across the North.

    Take major roads. Across the region, we’ve invested £2.5 billion in the Strategic Road Network over the past 3years. Including upgrades to the Newcastle-Gateshead Bypass, improvements to the A63 at Castle Street in Hull, and just last year, completing the £110 million A1 Scotswood to North Brunton scheme. These will not just increase safety and connectivity, but reduce congestion, which acts as a drag on our economy.

    But we’re also giving people alternatives to the car.

    Our National Bus Strategy, and I agree about the importance of buses – around twice as many journeys are made by bus than rail. Our National Bus Strategy transfers greater control over fares and timetables to local authorities, while giving operators the freedom to invest and innovate.

    And it’s working. Because not only have I welcomed the North-East’s and North of Tyne’s Bus Service Improvement Plan, today, I can confirm they will receive £118 million this year to deliver improved services for passengers.

    Now our commitment to buses stretches across the region, and indeed across the country. Last month, I extended both the Bus Recovery Grant and the £2 Fare Cap, which continues our support for a sector that’s still recovering from the pandemic.

    Here in the North-East, we’re also delivering a better railway with services on the East Coast Mainline bouncing back after the pandemic, with LNER the fastest recovering operator over the last 18 months. We’ll soon roll out single-leg pricing for tickets across the LNER network, giving passengers more flexibility in how they travel.

    And with the new Azuma Intercity Express Trains having been built in Newton Aycliffe, passengers in the North-East are riding on trains built in the North-East.

    But that’s not all. Open access operators such as Lumo are providing greater choice in this city, by making use of extra capacity on the network. And on the Tyne and Wear Metro, passengers will soon ride on a new fleet of modern trains, thanks to an investment of over £300 million from my department.

    But today, I am delighted to put right an historic wrong that’s lasted for 60 years. I can confirm we will reopen the Northumberland Line next year, making available the necessary funding that will build 6 new stations across the route. Connecting towns such as Ashington and Blyth to Newcastle, and breathing new economic life into those communities, delivered in partnership with Northumberland Council.

    Now, across the North, local leaders have long called for more ambitious rail infrastructure spending, as was touched on – and this government has answered that call.

    And I think it’s worth saying that any government has to be honest. Easy promises to get applause at events and conferences like this around the country, are not credible if people don’t have plans to pay for them. Ministers also have a duty to the taxpayer to set out well thought-through, costed promises.

    This government is committed £96 billion Integrated Rail Plan that we set out, which will deliver high speed rail to Manchester and transform journeys across the Pennines. And work is already underway. Like between Church Fenton and York, which includes some of the busiest stretches of railway in the North. A combination of electrification, track replacement and modern signalling will lead to faster and more efficient journeys for passengers. Which is part of the major upgrade to the 70-mile Trans-Pennine route. Which is a central government commitment that surpasses what we spent on Crossrail.

    However, one thing is obvious. Even with that investment, the single biggest investment since the creation of the railways right here in the North-East. That will be quickly forgotten if operators can’t deliver services aren’t up to scratch.

    If passengers are regularly let down by industrial action, as a result of the unions refusing to put reasonable pay offers to their members. The Rail Minister, Huw Merriman and I have made it clear to the relevant Managing Directors that services on Avanti West Coast and Trans-Pennine Express routes must improve. It’s good to see Avanti weekday services are starting to improve, but there is more to do so passengers don’t face unacceptable levels of disruption of the past 9 months.

    But also, if trade unions continue to reject pay offers, and refuse to undertake reforms, that are accepted in any modern industry, then it will be impossible to provide consistent and reliable services for passengers. It is not up for debate, about privatisation or nationalisation, it’s about building a modern railway which works as one coherent system in partnership.

    Patrick spoke about my George Bradshaw address, and that was about partnership between the state doing that part of the job that it needs to do, and the private sector doing its part to get more passengers back on the railway. It’s about improving the passengers’ experience, and if we don’t do that and get more revenue, that’s the only way we will build a sustainable and long-term railway, which isn’t at the mercy of antiquated working practices that prevent a reliable 7 day a week railway or hold us back from creating resilient infrastructure.

    Reform won’t just benefit passengers and freight customers, but also the workforce, who want to be part of a growing and sustainable industry, and it’s only that that can fund the pay rises that they expect. Almost the entire industry recognises the need to move forward, including the TSSA, whose members recently accepted a 5% plus 4% pay offer over 2 years.

    It’s a great sadness that the RMT have refused to put that same offer to their members, seemingly intent on thwarting the modernisation of the railways. My message to them is simple: reconsider, a best and final pay offer has been made, your members deserve the final say, let them make that decision in a referendum.

    Devolution

    Now, I’ve spoken about what we’re delivering for the North, but just as important are the powers we’re devolving to the North. Over 75% of the region is now covered by devolution deals, including the North-East, which will form a new Mayoral Combined Authority under a single Mayor, and with a £1.4 billion settlement to fund local priorities.

    You don’t need to look far to see what a determined and empowered Mayor can achieve. Ben Houchen has revived Teeside International Airport from the brink of closure. And opened the largest freeport in the country, which will attract investment and jobs. What Ben and others are doing across the North is important to me. Not just because as a small and big ‘c’ conservative, I’ve long championed the principle of more power in local hands. But because as a constituency MP in rural Gloucestershire for almost 20 years, I empathise with those who feel that Whitehall doesn’t always understand the transport needs of local communities. It touched on the needs of rural communities, for example, to make sure we’ve got transport that fits our needs.

    So whilst central governments must always ensure value for money for the taxpayer, I firmly believe more decisions should be made by local people, in local areas, and for local needs. So, through the Levelling Up Fund and Sustainable Transport Settlements, we’ve made over £3 billion in funding available for regional leaders to transform local transport, according to their priorities. That will lead to upgrades to the Sheffield Supertram, more cycling and walking schemes in the Tees Valley, and better bus routes between Leeds and Wakefield.

    But even the idea of a central government pulling the strategic levers from London feels outdated. That’s why we’ve set up Treasury North in Darlington. The National Infrastructure Bank and a Department for Transport office in Leeds, all clear signs that this Government is putting northern people and businesses at the heart of how this country is run.

    Decarbonisation

    Finally, let me mention how transport is delivering the sustainable economic recovery the country needs.

    The Prime Minister has reiterated our commitment to the 2050 net zero target – both through words and action. We now have departments of state dedicated to net zero, to science and innovation, and in the case of the DfT to transport decarbonisation. It means, right across Cabinet, decisions are being made to drive green growth.

    For transport, the source of most emissions is our roads. So, to support the rising popularity of electric vehicles, I’ve announced £56 million in public and industry funding to ensure local authorities can transform the availability of charging infrastructure. And this includes funding for nine local authorities in the North, such as Durham and Sunderland.

    We’re cleaning up buses too. The City of York and West Yorkshire authorities will be able to introduce over 30 new British made zero emission buses, thanks to a share of a £25 million investment I announced last week.

    However, we cannot overlook the North-East’s critical role in this future of clean travel. Look at what’s happening in Teesside, thanks to DfT funding, its Transport Hub is exploring how we use hydrogen to power some of our heaviest forms of transport.

    And industry is taking note, with BP and Protium already announcing plans for large scale green hydrogen production in the area. And with Port Clarence and Wilton International set to be the sites of new Sustainable Aviation Fuel production plants.

    This very corner of the country is powering a new green industrial revolution, 200 years after powering the first one.

    Conclusion

    So, increasing connectivity for the North. Devolving more power to the North. And decarbonising our economy, led by the North. That is our commitment to this region.

    And we cannot afford to fail. Because to grow the economy, to deal with the cost of living, and to win the race to net zero: the UK economy must fire on all cylinders.

    And it will be this government, led by the first Conservative Prime Minister from a northern constituency for over half a century, armed with a historic electoral mandate from the North, that will build on the foundations laid over the past 9 years, ensuring the North’s best years aren’t consigned to history, but actually lie ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Anthony Browne – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    Anthony Browne – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    The speech made by Anthony Browne, the Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2023.

    I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, and on his birthday as well—hopefully, seeing his Bill pass its Third Reading will be a fantastic birthday present for him. Like my various colleagues, I welcome the scope extension to include tradesmen and their tools, but I will concentrate my comments on the original rural focus of the Bill.

    Like my various colleagues, I have a rural constituency; I have many farmers in my constituency, and whenever I ask them what their key concerns are and how we can help, rural crime is always one of their top concerns. Indeed, just at the end of last year, I had a meeting with local farmers in the village of Abington Pigotts, which incidentally has a wonderful pub called the Pig & Abbot. Anyone who is in the area should visit that pub. There were 30 farmers there, and we were talking about rural crime. I did a little poll: I asked, “Who has experienced rural crime in the past year?”, and every single one of those 30 farmers stuck up their hand. Every single one had been a victim of rural crime in the past year.

    The police do their best. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the hard work of the police, and I know they work hard in Cambridgeshire, but it is often very difficult to crack down on rural crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) mentioned, urban crimes have a 25% higher enforcement rate than rural crimes. That is not just in South Cambridgeshire, obviously, but in all rural areas: when the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution did its big farming survey, 38% of farmers said that they had been victims of rural crime in the past year. Cereal farmers, who make up a large part of my farming community, are the hardest hit, with 51%—more than half—being victims of rural crime. As such, I fully appreciate and support the intent of the Bill.

    It is easy for people to dismiss the seriousness of rural crime; it is often seen as something that we do not really need to worry about. Quad bikes and ATVs, which are the focus of the Bill, are often viewed as leisure vehicles by many members of the public—they see advertisements for quad bike adventures, something that can be done in my constituency as well—but for farmers, they are serious working vehicles. Various hon. Friends have mentioned how dependent farmers are on their equipment to make a living. For farmers, those quad bikes and ATVs make them far more efficient when covering large areas; without them, they simply cannot do the work. Many farmers work on very tight margins, and having farm equipment operational makes the difference between making money for the year, enabling them to pay their wages, and losing money. Having proper, working farm equipment is crucial to people’s livelihoods. That is why agricultural machinery theft was reported to be a top priority for the police to tackle in the 2020 rural crime survey.

    Quad bikes and ATVs make particularly attractive targets. They are obviously transportable: a thief can load them on to a trailer or a lorry and whisk them away very easily. They often have poor security features that do little to deter those thieves. Their value on the second-hand market has increased recently, making them even more attractive as targets—that is because of the supply chain issues that make it quite difficult to order new ones, as we heard earlier. Currently, it takes three to six months to get a replacement vehicle, which is an incredibly long time for a farmer to cope without vital equipment.

    As such, I fully welcome the measures in the Bill to clamp down on this problem: they make a lot of common sense. Cars have had immobilisers on them for over 20 years, and it is time that ATVs and quad bikes followed suit. Immobilisers act as a significant deterrent by making vehicles much harder to steal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned, this is not just about making it easier to catch vehicles afterwards, but about deterring the crime in the first place.

    A vehicle register also seems like a natural step to take, as better record keeping will help put an end to the grey markets that the criminals tend to operate in. During my research for this speech, I came across the CESAR scheme—the construction and agricultural equipment security and registration scheme—which has a database of ownership and covert markings. That scheme has reported a 60% decline in thefts since it came into operation in 2008, and I hope this Bill will be the catalyst for a similar trend in quad bikes and ATVs.

    The Bill will save farmers much aggravation from the fallout and cost of theft. It will be good for police, because it will hopefully reduce the amount of work they have to do, and if there are cases of theft, they will be easier for police to track down and solve. It will also lead to a reduction in insurance premiums over time, which will be incredibly welcome for farmers while energy prices and the cost of living are so high.

    This and any Bill that tackles rural crime will always have my wholehearted support. We need to level up our response to crimes committed outside cities. I am glad to see that organisations such as the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, which I know are important in my constituency and elsewhere, fully support the Bill. I support it, and I hope it makes speedy passage through the Lords.

  • Ruth Jones – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    Ruth Jones – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    The speech made by Ruth Jones, the Labour MP for Newport West, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2023.

    I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing the Bill forward and wish him a happy birthday— penblwydd hapus.

    The Bill introduces a number of solutions to the growing problem of the theft of quad bikes and other all-terrain vehicles. We know from the National Farmers Union that there are between 800 and 1,100 thefts of ATVs every year. Aside from the financial cost, which is bad enough, there is the issue of the physical replacement of these vehicles. That can take months and hampers the vital work that farmers do to feed us and provide other important things for our country; I am thinking especially of the hill farmers in north Wales, who are very hard hit by the theft of these sorts of vehicles.

    The introduction of these common-sense solutions—immobilisers, forensic marking and the setting up of a registration database—is so sensible. At the risk of incurring Mr Deputy Speaker’s wrath, I make a plea for the use of SmartWater, which is so important for not just farm vehicles but all items, to discourage and deter thefts and enable the police to return stolen items to their rightful owners very quickly. Forensic marking is so important.

    I do not mean to detain the House for too long. I am sure Members from across the House will join me in thanking the hon. Member for Buckingham for bringing this positive and proactive piece of legislation before the House today.

  • James Wild – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    James Wild – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    The speech made by James Wild, the Conservative MP for North West Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2023.

    I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on reaching this stage, and I look forward to his Bill hopefully passing later today. I also wish him a happy birthday. The Bill makes important changes to prevent the theft and resale of equipment and tools that are essential to agricultural businesses in North West Norfolk and across the country. The Bill has a relatively limited initial scope aimed at preventing the theft of quad bikes and ATVs, but I was pleased, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) just referred to, that the Minister confirmed during Committee that the Government intend to extend the provisions beyond agricultural equipment to commercial tools as well.

    There is currently no legal requirement to fit immobilisers or forensic marking to machinery and equipment, although some manufacturers choose to do so on a voluntary basis. By addressing that gap, the Bill will help to reduce this type of theft. In addition, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to require records to be kept relating to equipment that has been sold and its buyers.

    Rural crime, in particular agricultural machinery theft, has a significant impact on my constituents. The proportion of suspects being charged for offences in towns and cities is 24% higher than in the countryside, and that imbalance must be addressed. Data published by NFU Mutual in its rural crime report of 2022 estimated the cost of rural theft to be £40 million, of which £5 million was in the east of England. Some £10 million was agricultural vehicle theft, but it is broader than that. Anyone who has watched the latest series of “Clarkson’s Farm” will have seen that it raised the issue of GPS devices being stolen regularly, and I hope the Bill will be extended to deal with that issue.

    The Countryside Alliance’s rural crime survey presented stark statistics, with 32% of respondents reporting having experienced agricultural machinery theft, making it the second most reported crime, just 3% behind fly-tipping. Unsurprisingly, the rural crime survey found that agricultural machinery theft was respondents’ top priority for the police to tackle.

    As we have heard, an estimated 900 to 1,200 quad bikes and ATVs are stolen each year, and this theft is damaging the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency and across the country. The cost of that theft is around £2.2 million. After a fall in the number of these thefts during the pandemic, for understandable reasons, they are now on the increase. Quad bikes and ATVs are essential to farming and land management, and have become a crucial piece of equipment to get around on a farm instead of using a tractor, whether that is to check livestock, move animals, move feedstock or set up fences, as well as many other uses.

    I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has consulted widely; he gave a long list of the organisations he has worked with to get the Bill to this position. I am confident from the evidence I have seen that regulations requiring immobilisers and forensic marking will lead to a substantial reduction in this type of theft. I noted with interest in the explanatory notes that the proportion of road vehicles with immobilisers fitted increased to 98% between 1993 and 2013, which led to a decline of up to 45% in such thefts.

    There is also a wider problem of tool theft. A report found that nearly four in five tradespeople had experienced tool theft, which is a striking statistic. While the financial cost of this theft is more easily quantifiable, it also has a damaging impact on people’s health and wellbeing.

    I represent a rural constituency, and I believe it is important to introduce the regulations on ATVs as soon as possible. The Minister has indicated that he wants to do so by Christmas. While I support the extension of the Bill’s provisions to cover more agricultural and other equipment, any extra time required to develop that extension should not affect the plan to have the regulations in place by Christmas. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his important work on getting the Bill to this stage, and I look forward to supporting it this afternoon.

  • Rob Butler – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    Rob Butler – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    The speech made by Rob Butler, the Conservative MP for Aylesbury, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2023.

    It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), my constituency neighbour, on introducing this important Bill, to which I am pleased to have contributed in Committee. It will be a fitting birthday present for him if it passes Third Reading today.

    The Bill sets out much-needed changes that are straightforward, practical and will, as my hon. Friend says, no doubt help to reduce rural crime. From visiting farms in my constituency, I know how much the theft of machinery concerns farmers and the increasing impact it has had over the past few years. Indeed, the Countryside Alliance’s 2022 rural crime survey, which had more than 2,000 responses, underlines the extent of the problem, with 15% of respondents reporting having experienced the theft of agricultural machinery in that one year alone. Machinery theft was second only to fly-tipping.

    As my hon. Friend says, it is no exaggeration to say that farmers depend on their machinery for their livelihood. Deprived of that equipment, farmers are simply unable to work as efficiently, and their ability to generate revenue is diminished. Not only that, but there is the costly, slow and sometimes stressful process of replacing the stolen machinery. It is crucial that farmers are given support to deter criminals from stealing their machinery and, in particular, the all-terrain vehicles specified in this Bill. It is crucial that farmers are given support to deter criminals from stealing their machinery and, in particular, the all-terrain vehicles specified in the Bill.

    It is worth noting that demand for ATVs has grown recently at a rate that has outstripped the readily available supply. That, of course, increases the incentive for those with criminal intent, because they know they will be able to sell what they steal. The National Farmers Union has reported that members are having to wait three to six months to obtain one of these vehicles. That means the vehicles are especially lucrative because not only are they highly sought-after and easily portable, but there is a ready resale market in this country and, indeed, abroad. NFU Mutual’s annual rural crime survey stated that quad bike and ATV theft amounted to £2.2 million in 2021, which is not an insignificant sum.

    Most of us will know from our own experience with cars that immobilisers are a tried and tested deterrent. When affixed to ATVs, they make them more secure. Their value is clear: since 1992, all new cars in the UK have been built with an immobiliser and, in the following 30 years, vehicle theft plummeted by an incredible 43%. While other factors may have contributed, data produced by the Home Office demonstrated a strong correlation between the increased fitting of immobilisers and the reduction in stolen vehicles. In the light of that, the standardised fitting of these devices on all new-build ATVs and the retrofitting of them to other vehicles prior to sale could prove to be a relatively cheap and highly effective approach.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has had the foresight in his Bill to consider not only the prevention of theft, but, where that sadly fails, the recovery of ATVs that have been stolen. The forensic marking he described should enable police forces to identify the ATVs they recover and more easily return them to their rightful owners. Furthermore, requiring sellers to record details of the sale, including information about the vehicle and the buyer, is key to the success of the Bill’s aims and provides an appropriate audit trail.

    I am pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister is considering extending the Bill’s provisions, as and when appropriate, to go beyond ATVs and include other equipment and commercial tools—a subject that was much discussed in Committee. Tool theft regularly afflicts an array of trades beyond farming, such as roofers, electricians and plumbers. Presently, the second-hand tool market is unregulated. That means that sellers have no obligation to prove the origin of their items or even to evidence the original purchase. It has been argued quite understandably that this encourages and facilitates the theft of tools. As with farmers, not only is the loss of equipment an immediate financial loss for tradespeople; it prevents them from working and can disrupt the schedule of their building projects, causing frustration to them and their customers.

    The help that my hon. Friend’s Bill provides is necessary and timely. It is not right that security is such a significant concern for many farmers. The provision of immobilisers, forensic marking and recording of the sale of ATVs will reduce the likelihood that they will fall victim to this crime, which, as I have outlined, has an impact well beyond the immediate loss of the vehicle. I applaud my hon. Friend for the work he has done. I am absolutely confident that farmers in my constituency, as well as his, and across the entire country would benefit from this legislation. I look forward to his Bill making its way on to the statute book as soon as possible.